What Do We Think About Climate Change

You're really funny!

Cheers.

 

What bothers me in these discussions is that 'Raw data" or solid proof seems to be that of a bubble someone found in a lump of ice with less oxygen in it and there fore it was hotter then??? --or something like that.

Or a dead plant that died from something!!

Thats not enough for me. Its not enough for the Governments also who will not do anything untill they know what is going on.

The scientists with their milk bottle bottom glasses can debate into the early hours if they like.

I have been here a long time and just about everything I have been told has been changed at a later date.

A fresh kid just out of college with a clip board can come up with some surprising stuff,--like letting a dog loose on the beach.

Global warming? what global warming? it was cold here last night and I am latitude 6 North

 

this statement represents a complete misunderstanding of the hole rapid global climate change theory
and exactly the kind of thing Im talking about when I say some people just chose to ignore not just the data but the actual predictions of the theory
basically the theory states that a warming event will be induced or exacerbated by human interaction and eventually destabilize the grand oceanic current
resulting in an overall cooling event catastrophic to our present norm
not an overall and enduring warming event
thats is just the beginning
the end result of rapid global climate change is
cooling
has been the prediction from the start

have you folks ever read the theory
might help since you seem to reject it so out of hand

and yes G

should have read

Jim's insistence on layman's opinions instead of the consideration of significant scientific data

I guess with the error it dd sound pretty funny

but hey
I spend about a split second responding to this drivel and dont often proof read what amounts to an easy kill

so no worries
the data has been presented and ignored
and will continue to be
no mater how it is presented
B

oh almost forgot
from Jimmy

it does specially when so called scientists like the following are presented by the global warming skeptics as being actually accredited sources

 

Wurm Ice Age refuge 15,000 years ago.

http://klimakatastrophe.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/die-sonne-das-klima-unstoppable-solar-cycles/

It is in English. Viking settlers on Greenland perished because of global cooling. If those tough independent peoples couldn't survive the Little Ice Age, then I don't fancy the chances of the weak and untrained members of present day societies. The Scandinavians, Canadians and the inhabitants of Minnesota might just have a chance and so shall I, as I going to move and join Guillermo in Galicia.

Note to self. Ask Guillermo about property in Pontevedra. I'll call it "Casa de Teucris".

There's plenty of precedent for such a radical move. In Stephen Oppenheim's 2006 book "The Origins of the British", revised in 2007, Oppenheimer argued that neither Anglo-Saxons nor Celts had much impact on the genetics of the inhabitants of the British Isles, and that British ancestry mainly traces back to the Palaeolithic Iberian people, now represented by Basques instead. He also argued that the Scandinavian input has been underestimated. He published an introduction to his book in Prospect magazine[1] and answered some of his critics in a further Prospect magazine article in June 2007.

Oppenheimer uses genetic studies to give an insight into the genetic origins of people in the British Isles and speculates on how to match this evidence with documentary, linguistic and archaeological data to give insights into the origins of Britain, the Celts, the Vikings and the English. Oppenheimer uses DNA databases provided by Weale et al, Capelli et al and Rosser et al to provide new analyses of the haplotype distributions in both the male and female lines of the populations of Britain and Ireland (as well as Western Europe).

He breaks down the R1b haplogroup into a detailed set of "clans" that are undefined. He makes the case that the geography and climate have had an influence on the genetics and culture of Britain, because of coastline changes. These genetic and cultural changes stem from two main zones of contact:

1. The Atlantic fringe, mainly from Spain and Portugal, to the western British Isles
2. Northern Europe, originally across Doggerland to eastern England and from Scandinavia to northern Scotland

Oppenheimer derives much archaeological information from Professor Barry Cunliffe's ideas of the trading routes using the Atlantic from Spain, and from the writings of:

* Simon James (The Atlantic Celts - Ancient People or Modern Invention? ISBN 0299166740)

* Francis Pryor (Britain B.C. : life in Britain and Ireland before the Romans ISBN 0007126921)

* John Collis (The Celts : origins, myths & inventions ISBN 0752429132)
* Colin Renfrew, (Archaeology and Language - The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins ISBN 0521354323)

The work of the geneticist Peter Forster has strongly influenced Oppenheimer's linguistic theories. He uses the evidence that the Germanic genetic contribution to eastern England originated before the Anglo-Saxon conquest of much of England incursion to suggest that the possibility that some inhabitants of the isle of Britain spoke English well before the so-called "Dark Ages".

Oppenheimer's main ideas include:

1. The importance of Cunliffe's Atlantic routes to the settling of Britain.
2. Since much British genetic material dates to the re-settlement of Britain following the ice ages, all subsequent invasions/migrations/immigrations occurred on a relatively small scale and did not replace Britain's population.
3. The origins of Celtic culture lie in southwestern Europe. The Central European ([La Tène culture]) theory for Celtic origins has no basis. Celtic culture arrived in the British Isles before the Iron Age and only involved limited movement of people, mainly into the east of England.
4. There are some differences between the male and female origins of the British population, but these are small.
5. Some genetic evidence is in support of Renfrew's theory that Indo-European origins comes with farming.
6. Genetic evidence suggests that the division between the West and the East of England does not begin with the Anglo-Saxon invasion but originates with two main routes of genetic flow — one up the Atlantic coast, the other from neighbouring areas of Continental Europe. This happened just after the Last Glacial Maximum. There is a cline between east and west, rather than a sharp division.
7. Scandinavian influences, stronger than suspected, may outweigh West Germanic influence.
8. A genetic difference exists between the Saxon areas of England and the Anglian areas. (Oppenheimer suggests that the so-called Anglo-Saxon invasion actually mostly consisted of an Anglian incursion.)
9. English being native to east Britain might explain the lack of Celtic influence on early English and the genetic split between East and West.
10. Classical sources differentiate between Gallic/Celtic and Belgae. Sources state that some of the (northern) Belgae have a German origin. Various archaeological and linguistic evidence make for a weaker case for Celtic presence in Belgium and Eastern England than in Gallic/Celtic or western Britain.

In Origins of the British (2006), Stephen Oppenheimer states (pages 375 and 378):

"By far the majority of male gene types in the British Isles derive from Iberia (Spain and Portugal), ranging from a low of 59% in Fakenham, Norfolk to highs of 96% in Llangefni, north Wales and 93% Castlerea, Ireland. On average only 30% of gene types in England derive from north-west Europe. Even without dating the earlier waves of north-west European immigration, this invalidates the Anglo-Saxon wipeout theory..."

"...75-95% of British Isles (genetic) matches derive from Iberia... Ireland, coastal Wales, and central and west-coast Scotland are almost entirely made up from Iberian founders, while the rest of the non-English parts of the British Isles have similarly high rates. England has rather lower rates of Iberian types with marked heterogeneity, but no English sample has less than 58% of Iberian samples..."

In page 367 Oppenheimer states in relation to Zoë H Rosser's pan-European genetic distance map:

"In Rosser's work, the closest population to the Basques is in Cornwall, followed closely by Wales, Ireland, Scotland, England, Spain, Belgium, Portugal and then northern France."

He reports work on linguistics by Forster and Toth which suggests that Indo-European languages began to fragment some 10,000 years ago (at the end of the Ice Age). Oppenheimer claims that Celtic split from Indo-European earlier than previously suspected, some 6000 years ago, while English split from Germanic before the Roman period, see Forster, Polzin and Rohl.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Oppenheimer#Origins_of_the_British

 

Frosty, plenty of "raw data" can be found in your local pubs, perhaps this lot should adjourn there and learn something useful and ignore some lies for a better lie in a good harbour to drop anchor...

 

Seems to me that the trend over the last few years has been one of a shift in valid arguments from the GW crowd to the GW skeptics crowd.

Jimbo 1490 and Guillermo seem to be presenting consistent well thought out arguments with references while Boston seems to be trying to rise above the debate with sense of smug superior intellect. A similar scenario seems to be being played out in every debate that I have been following on the internet in recent times.

I have been swinging more towards the argument against global warming over the last few years as a result.

 

Perry,

Very fascinating stuff!

Boston,

I have not ignored anything relevant, it's just that you have not posted anything relevant. The question at hand is whether climate change is being caused by human activity or not. All that you have posted is about the effects of climate change, not the cause, and therefore not relevant to answering this basic question.

Acidification/acidic stratification of the oceans is a possible effect of global warming.

The potential interruption of the thermo-haline mixing current is a possible effect of global warming.

I read voraciously about all this stuff back in the late 80's and early 90's when I was still a 'believer', so NONE of this is news to me.

But all these effects can be caused just as easily by natural increases in CO2, which is far more likely.

It's still more plausible that the warming oceans are wholly responsible for the observed increases in atmospheric CO2, and that this is itself an effect of global warming, or more precisely, oceanic warming.

But what we know to be true about oceanic warming is that it takes several hundred years for the oceans to respond thermally to a 'perturbation'. This means that whatever perturbation is causing the oceans to warm now, began long ago not recently, and certainly not in the last ~60 years.

And you can't look back to the 'beginning of the industrial revolution' and start pointing the blame finger at anthropogenic CO2 without running headlong into the 'threshold of significance' issue. It's widely accepted even among AGW leaning scientists that climatologically significant anthropogenic CO2 releases only began after WWII. So we really only have about a ~60 year 'look back' period, NOT the hundreds of years it takes for the oceans to warm. This means that the oceans had to be warming already when climatologically significant releases of CO2 began. Therefore anthropogenic CO2 cannot be the cause of that warming. It's just a simple logic puzzle, as I've said before.

Now if you insist that pre-WWII anthropogenic CO2 releases must have been significant because the climate was warming before WWII, then you will be forced to select o 'threshold of significance' for anthropogenic CO2 releases that is scientifically untenable, which is a big reason why even AGW leaning scientists are content to accept the post WWII releases as the beginning of climatologically significant releases.

Boston, I hope that you can see after reading this post that I do indeed possess a thorough grasp of the concepts at hand, and all the various nuances of the theory and its sub theories.

BTW, the potential for perturbation of the thermo-haline current is according to the last IPCC report "Highly unlikely" within the context of their predictions of future warming. Remember that the IPCC is on your side


Jimbo

 

the following should end the debate that there is a growing number of climate scientist turning skeptics
the data clearly shows
there is a growing number who are believers
an overwhelming number 97% believe global average temp has increased while 84% believe this warming is based on human activity
only 5% believing humans are not to blame
with the remaining undecided

if anyone questions those numbers as representing a consensus
then my next post will be the definition of a consensus

I posted the previous quote based on someones statement

if you dig through you will find a video I posted hosted by the professor emeritus of scripts oceanographic institute on the state of the oceans

all the trends you need to scare the skepticism out of you are there
if you want to

while Ill grant you Guillermo is a fine debater and presents a polite and well thought out argument although I believe representing mostly the same kind of anomalous data that exists in any scientific study
Jim blatantly uses the same discredited sources and obvious industry cronies as references and has completely ignored the vast amount of data from accredited sources, instead simply repeating the same old tired complaints
about the same old data he has problems with
it didnt take long before I lost interest in the tedium finding no reasonable argument in an oft repeated diatribe

frankly I have better things to do with my time and why I stepped out of this unscientific debate long ago
funny but having dropped back in to see who was still hard at it I find the same few people with the same old tired arguments

to which my previous conclusion having given the skeptics a chance to explain there position stands

 

Jimbo, I doubt anyone has the "authority" to definitely state " ......the cause is......" unless it be God delivering his decree of disappointment in us....

To All & sundry:-
In learning and seeking an understanding, - it behoves us to look carefully at ancient data, - as implied in geological analysis, - and recent human recordings of surface temperatures, - and in some cases those subsurface temperatures in oceans, as well as various atmospheric thermal gradients to evaluate thermal mass and the possibilities of increase or decreases in temperature and what may be the influences that caused this and where that may head in the near future...

No such reasoned case has been put YET, - - - so pontificate on in a vacuum - - and enjoy yourselves ad-infinitum....

 

Dude,

I've got some bad news for you; realclimate.org is a discredited source as they continue to defend MBH-98 which has gone down in flames. That's why that website exists in the first place. Do some research and see for yourself.

This means the latest graphs from the IPCC are suspect, as they were compiled by Briffa, the 'B' in MBH-98. He has already been caught improperly truncating data series that showed downward trending temperatures in his latest recon and graphs, which you posted earlier.

This also means that your favorite AGW alarmist movie which featured both the MBH-98 recon and famous graph is also based on the same fraudulent hogwash. IIRC, Mr Mann, the 'M' in MBH-98 is prominently featured in that film.

It also means we must suspect whatever comes out of the mouth of Hansen, the 'H' in MHB-98. But his secret corrections to data sets alone and backpedaling about the warmest decade should give us plenty of reason to suspect him, even without his involvement in the MBH-98 disgrace.

These guys are a cabal of charlatans, and will one day be mentioned with the like of Ponds and Fleischmann.

Once again your emperor has no clothes.

You might think my objections are tired, but since you have been unable to refute any of them with DATA, but only use 'appeals to authority' to show how anyone that opposes the 'consensus' must be a *****, those 'tired' objections still stand.

Please, put them to rest with some data instead of another rant!



Jimbo

 

kings got a dynomite set of threads going

the emporor is dressed and ready to kill

The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

the following is a short list of the thousands of scientific organizations from around the world who have made statements concerning the issue of global climate change


InterAcademy Council
As the representative of the world’s scientific and engineering academies,[6][7] the InterAcademy Council (IAC) issued a report in 2007 entitled Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future.
Current patterns of energy resources and energy usage are proving detrimental to the long-term welfare of humanity. The integrity of essential natural systems is already at risk from climate change caused by the atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases.[8]
Concerted efforts should be mounted for improving energy efficiency and reducing the carbon intensity of the world economy.[9]

Joint science academies' statement 2008
In preparation for the 34th G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration reiterating the position of the 2005 joint science academies’ statement, and reaffirming “that climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems.” Among other actions, the declaration urges all nations to “(t)ake appropriate economic and policy measures to accelerate transition to a low carbon society and to encourage and effect changes in individual and national behaviour.”[10]
The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Joint science academies’ statement 2007
In preparation for the 2007 G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration referencing the position of the 2005 joint science academies' statement, and acknowledging the confirmation of their previous conclusion by recent research. Following the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the declaration states:
It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken.
The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Joint science academies’ statement 2005
In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action[11], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus. The eleven signatories were the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Joint science academies’ statement 2001
In 2001, following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, sixteen national science academies issued a joint statement explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science. The sixteen science academies that issued the statement were those of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.[12]

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
In October 2007, the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS) issued a Statement on Environment and Sustainable Growth[13]
As reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most of the observed global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human-produced emission of greenhouse gases and this warming will continue unabated if present anthropogenic emissions continue or, worse, expand without control.
CAETS, therefore, endorses the many recent calls to decrease and control greenhouse gas emissions to an acceptable level as quickly as possible.

European Academy of Sciences and Arts
In March 2007, the European Academy of Sciences and Arts issued a formal declaration in which they stated, “Human activity is most likely responsible for climate warming. Most of the climatic warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Documented long-term climate changes include changes in Arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones. The above development potentially has dramatic consequences for mankind’s future. “[14]

Network of African Science Academies
In 2007, the Network of African Science Academies submitted a joint “statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change” to the leaders meeting at the G8 Summit in Heiligendamm, Germany.
“A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.”
“The IPCC should be congratulated for the contribution it has made to public understanding of the nexus that exists between energy, climate and sustainability.”[15]
The thirteen signatories were the science academies of Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, as well as the African Academy of Sciences.
National Research Council (US)

In 2001, the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions.[16] This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the scientific community:
The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.[16]

European Science Foundation
The European Science Foundation has issued a Position Paper on climate change in which they concur, "There is now convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases have become a major agent of climate change. These greenhouse gases affect the global climate by retaining heat in the troposphere, thus raising the average temperature of the planet and altering global atmospheric circulation and precipitation patterns." The paper concluded, "While on-going national and international actions to curtail and reduce greenhouse gas emissions are essential, the levels of greenhouse gases currently in the atmosphere, and their impact, are likely to persist for several decades. On-going and increased efforts to mitigate climate change through reduction in greenhouse gases are therefore crucial."[17]

American Association for the Advancement of Science
In December 2006, the American Association for the Advancement of Science adopted an official statement on climate change in which they stated, "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now."[18]

Federation of American Scientists
In their Energy and Environment Overview, the Federation of American Scientists state, “There is no serious doubt that human activity is altering the earth's climate in potentially catastrophic ways. Even skeptics are forced to admit that the risk is real and that prudence demands action if only as an insurance policy, the only serious debate is about how best to respond." [19]

World Meteorological Organization
In its Statement at the Twelfth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirms the need to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” The WMO concurs that “scientific assessments have increasingly reaffirmed that human activities are indeed changing the composition of the atmosphere, in particular through the burning of fossil fuels for energy production and transportation.” The WMO concurs that “the present atmospheric concentration of CO2 was never exceeded over the past 420,000 years;” and that the IPCC “assessments provide the most authoritative, up-to-date scientific advice.” [20]

American Meteorological Society
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said:
There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.[21]

Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
In February 2007, after the release of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, the Royal Meteorological Society issued an endorsement of the report. In addition to referring to the IPCC as “world’s best climate scientists”, they stated that climate change is happening as “the result of emissions since industrialization and we have already set in motion the next 50 years of global warming – what we do from now on will determine how worse it will get.” [22]

Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society has issued a Statement on Climate Change, wherein they conclude, “Global climate change and global warming are real and observable…It is highly likely that those human activities that have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been largely responsible for the observed warming since 1950. The warming associated with increases in greenhouse gases originating from human activity is called the enhanced greenhouse effect. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by more than 30% since the start of the industrial age and is higher now than at any time in at least the past 650,000 years. This increase is a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity.”[23]

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
"CMOS endorses the process of periodic climate science assessment carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and supports the conclusion, in its Third Assessment Report, which states that the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate."[24]
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
In November 2005, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS) issued a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada stating that "We concur with the climate science assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001 ... We endorse the conclusions of the IPCC assessment that 'There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities'. ... There is increasingly unambiguous evidence of changing climate in Canada and around the world. There will be increasing impacts of climate change on Canada’s natural ecosystems and on our socio-economic activities. Advances in climate science since the 2001 IPCC Assessment have provided more evidence supporting the need for action and development of a strategy for adaptation to projected changes."[25]

International Union for Quaternary Research
The statement on climate change issued by the International Union for Quaternary Research reiterates the conclusions of the IPCC, and urges all nations to take prompt action in line with the UNFCCC principles.
“Human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses - including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide - to rise well above pre-industrial levels….Increases in greenhouse gasses are causing temperatures to rise…The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action….Minimizing the amount of this carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere presents a huge challenge but must be a global priority.” [26]

American Quaternary Association
The American Quaternary Association (AMQUA) has stated, “Few credible Scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise of global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution,” citing “the growing body of evidence that warming of the atmosphere, especially over the past 50 years, is directly impacted by human activity.” [27]

Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
The Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London stated, "We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling."[28]

International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
In July 2007, the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) adopted a resolution entitled “The Urgency of Addressing Climate Change”. In it, the IUGG concurs with the “comprehensive and widely accepted and endorsed scientific assessments carried out by the International Panel on Climate Change and regional and national bodies, which have firmly established, on the basis of scientific evidence, that human activities are the primary cause of recent climate change.” They state further that the “continuing reliance on combustion of fossil fuels as the world’s primary source of energy will lead to much higher atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses, which will, in turn, cause significant increases in surface temperature, sea level, ocean acidification, and their related consequences to the environment and society.” [29]

International Union of Geological Sciences
In their Climate Change prospectus for the International Year of Planet Earth project, the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) stated, “The idea that there is a strong human imprint on recent climate change is now compelling, with forest clearing, building and man-made gas emissions all having a strong influence on Earth’s warming.”[30]
We know that human activity has resulted in changes to atmospheric chemistry and land cover, and caused serious decline in biodiversity.[31]

European Geosciences Union
In July 2005, the European Geosciences Union (EGU) issued a position statement in support of the joint science academies’ statement on global response to climate change. Additionally, the EGU concurred that the IPCC “represents the state-of-the-art of climate science supported by the major science academies around the world and by the vast majority of science researchers and investigators as documented by the peer-reviewed scientific literature.” [32]

Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
The Canadian Federation Of Earth Sciences has issued a position paper on global climate change in which they state, “ Canada's Earth scientists also recognize that humans are adding greenhouse gases (GHGs) to our atmosphere at an ever increasing rate. The level of CO2 in our atmosphere is now greater than at any time in the past 500,000 years; there will be consequences for our global climate and natural systems as a result….These could include: increased frequency and severity of drought, coastal erosion, sea level change, permafrost degradation, impact of reduced glacier cover on water resources, groundwater quality and quantity, and occurrence of climate-related natural hazards such as flooding, dust storms and landslides.”[33]

Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning."[34]

American Geophysical Union
The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement [35] adopted by the society in 2003 and revised in 2007 affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:
The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

American Astronomical Society
The American Astronomical Society has endorsed the AGU statement:[36]
In endorsing the "Human Impacts on Climate" statement [issued by the American Geophysical Union], the AAS recognizes the collective expertise of the AGU in scientific subfields central to assessing and understanding global change, and acknowledges the strength of agreement among our AGU colleagues that the global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change.

American Institute of Physics
The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics endorsed the AGU statement on human-induced climate change:[37]
The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003.

American Physical Society
In November 2007, the American Physical Society (APS) adopted an official statement on climate change: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."[38]

American Chemical Society
The American Chemical Society stated:
Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles (IPCC, 2007). There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change.
The reality of global warming, its current serious and potentially disastrous impacts on Earth system properties, and the key role emissions from human activities play in driving these phenomena have been recognized by earlier versions of this ACS policy statement (ACS, 2004), by other major scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union (AGU, 2003), the American Meteorological Society (AMS, 2007) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 2007), and by the U. S. National Academies and ten other leading national academies of science (NA, 2005). This statement reviews key global climate change impacts and recommends actions required to mitigate or adapt to currently anticipated consequences.[39]

American Society for Microbiology
In 2003, the American Society for Microbiology issued a public policy report in which they recommend “reducing net anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the atmosphere” and “minimizing anthropogenic disturbances of” atmospheric gasses:[40]
Carbon dioxide concentrations were relatively stable for the past 10,000 years but then began to increase rapidly about 150 years ago…as a result of fossil fuel consumption and land use change.[41]
Of course, changes in atmospheric composition are but one component of global change, which also includes disturbances in the physical and chemical conditions of the oceans and land surface. Although global change has been a natural process throughout Earth’s history, humans are responsible for substantially accelerating present-day changes. These changes may adversely affect human health and the biosphere on which we depend.[42]
Outbreaks of a number of diseases, including Lyme disease, hantavirus infections, dengue fever, bubonic plague, and cholera, have been linked to climate change.[43]

American College of Preventive Medicine
In 2006, the American College of Preventive Medicine issued a policy statement on “Abrupt Climate Change and Public Health Implications”:
The American College of Preventive Medicine (ACPM) accept the position that global warming and climate change is occurring, that there is potential for abrupt climate change, and that human practices that increase greenhouse gases exacerbate the problem, and that the public health consequences may be severe.[44]

American Public Health Association
In 2007, the American Public Health Association issued a policy statement entitled ‘’Addressing the Urgent Threat of Global Climate Change to Public Health and the Environment’’:
The long-term threat of global climate change to global health is extremely serious and the fourth IPCC report and other scientific literature demonstrate convincingly that anthropogenic GHG emissions are primarily responsible for this threat….US policy makers should immediately take necessary steps to reduce US emissions of GHGs, including carbon dioxide, to avert dangerous climate change.[45]

American Medical Association
In 2008, the American Medical Association issued a policy statement on global climate change declaring that they:
Support the findings of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which states that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that these changes will negatively effect public health.
Support educating the medical community on the potential adverse public health effects of global climate change, including topics such as population displacement, flooding, infectious and vector-borne diseases, and healthy water supplies.[46]

American Statistical Association
On November 30, 2007, the American Statistical Association Board of Directors adopted a statement on climate change:
The ASA endorses the IPCC conclusions. ... Over the course of four assessment reports, a small number of statisticians have served as authors or reviewers. Although this involvement is encouraging, it does not represent the full range of statistical expertise available. ASA recommends that more statisticians should become part of the IPCC process. Such participation would be mutually beneficial to the assessment of climate change and its impacts and also to the statistical community.[47]
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
"Engineers Australia believes that Australia must act swiftly and proactively in line with global expectations to address climate change as an economic, social and environmental risk... We believe that addressing the costs of atmospheric emissions will lead to increasing our competitive advantage by minimising risks and creating new economic opportunities. Engineers Australia believes the Australian Government should ratify the Kyoto Protocol."[48]

Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments. Though it did not state what percentage of climate change might be anthropogenic, the assessment concluded:
Studies ... show clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone). ... The observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, nor by the effects of short-lived atmospheric constituents (such as aerosols and tropospheric ozone) alone.[49]
In a May 29, 2008 assessment, they stated:
It is well established through formal attribution studies that the global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases.[50]
Noncommittal statements

American Association of State Climatologists
The 2001 statement from the American Association of State Climatologists noted the difficulties with predicting impacts due to climate change, while acknowledging that human activities are having an effect on climate:
Climate prediction is difficult because it involves complex, nonlinear interactions among all components of the earth’s environmental system. (...) The AASC recognizes that human activities have an influence on the climate system. Such activities, however, are not limited to greenhouse gas forcing and include changing land use and sulfate emissions, which further complicates the issue of climate prediction. Furthermore, climate predictions have not demonstrated skill in projecting future variability and changes in such important climate conditions as growing season, drought, flood-producing rainfall, heat waves, tropical cyclones and winter storms. These are the type of events that have a more significant impact on society than annual average global temperature trends. Policy responses to climate variability and change should be flexible and sensible – The difficulty of prediction and the impossibility of verification of predictions decades into the future are important factors that allow for competing views of the long-term climate future. Therefore, the AASC recommends that policies related to long-term climate not be based on particular predictions, but instead should focus on policy alternatives that make sense for a wide range of plausible climatic conditions regardless of future climate... Finally, ongoing political debate about global energy policy should not stand in the way of common sense action to reduce societal and environmental vulnerabilities to climate variability and change. Considerable potential exists to improve policies related to climate.[51]

American Association of Petroleum Geologists
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) Position Statement on climate change states that "the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases ... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models."[52]
Prior to the adoption of this statement, the AAPG was the only major scientific organization that rejected the finding of significant human influence on recent climate, according to a statement by the Council of the American Quaternary Association.[53] Explaining the plan for a revision, AAPG president Lee Billingsly wrote in March 2007 that "Members have threatened to not renew their memberships ... if AAPG does not alter its position on global climate change ... . And I have been told of members who already have resigned in previous years because of our current global climate change position. ... The current policy statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members."[54]
Statements by dissenting organizations

With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.[53]

I suspect you're going to ignore the endless amounts of supporting data and stay fossilized on Mann for a long time to come

97% agreement concerning global warming
84% agreement its caused by man
74% agree that there is a substantiating body of scientific work to directly support rapid global climate change
5% dissenting but have no continuity of scientific evidence sufficient to present a theory

the consensus is against the detractor's view by a dramatically overwhelming amount
one that no reasonable person would ignore
if you insist on data but aren't willing to read or are unable to understand it
whats the point
other than that you have chosen a belief rather than established a hypothesis

good luck
your going to need it
love B

 

Now this is starting to get interesting..... I would still like to see actual research data obtained by a university research program before it was polished and had "non-supportive data removed as being 'unreliable'", as that would support my confidence in the later postulated analysis of the numbers... Fuel the debate McDuff...

 

This is my point exactly. The skeptics are not saying that this or that mechanism is definitely the cause of climate change. Several different explanations have been proffered over the years, each with its supporters and detractors.

OTOH the AGW alarmists insist that humans MUST be to blame for all or nearly all the observed warming. Given the thermal inertia of the oceans alone, this position is absolutely absurd!

Many would be surprised that the default position of the AGW alarmists on this whole issue is 'blame the humans'; when they take a look at the earth and its climate and make a prediction about what they believe the average temperature 'should be', any temperature anomaly in excess of this number is automatically attributed to human causes, since they just don't know of any alternate explanation (yet)

Thank goodness there are skeptics that have uncovered several other more plausible mechanisms for climate change; the AGW alarmists have ceased the search being satisfied with their pet theory and its potential for winning political power on behalf of causes and candidates they favor. They have proven that they are even willing to fake data to make sure they are 'right'.

This has got to be the most ridiculous aspect of their whole position.

Jimbo

 

Hey Boston,

You are doing the 'appeal to authority' thing again. Not good dude. This is the refuge of those who don't want to address the questions directly.


The '928 abstracts' thing was proven again, sloppy at best but more likely a tad bit of a fib. Check it out here:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/m...scientists_the_debate_is_not_over/page-2.html

The magazine that originally published this bit of propaganda was forced to print an erratum. How embarrassing

After you chew on that, remember this from a few pages ago? Excerpted from Guillermo's post #1273:

In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental Researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.


- "Ours is one of the highest-quality climate records available anywhere today, and in it we see obvious confirmation that natural climate change can be dramatic. For example, in the middle of a 62-year slice of the record at about 4,400 years ago, there was a shift in climate in only a couple of seasons from warm, dry, and sunny conditions to one that was mostly cold and rainy for several decades.”

I know, there I go again, re-posting stuff But gosh darn it, if you would just read and understand it the first time I wouldn't have to do that

I guess you've probably seen that pesky Oregon Petition Project by now. I know the link has been posted to this thread several times but here we go again:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

They've got something over 30,000 REAL scientists signed up now! I'd say you and the AGW gurus have got your work cut out for you, trying to discredit and discount each and every one of these guys! That's hell of a lot of dirt to dig up, so I suggest you get busy with that! The questions about the glaring holes in the AGW theory can wait; character assassination can't


Can't you just see Boston now, with his silly rubber bat in front of a wack-a-mole with skeptical scientists popping their heads up out of a grid with 31, 000 holes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey5Ht0TCHZM

Jimbo

 

I personally am quite willing to accept that dumping all this crap into the atmosphere will have done something to it.

If its damaged it or not we will find out , but to print 92.5% this and 0.37% that,-- is impossible.

Wouldnt you think that a volcano eruption or an accidental nuclear power plant blowing up would have an immediate effect. If not a measurable one.

Instead we get absalute numbers like-34.7million tons of ash went into the atmosphere. How do they work out .7 bit.

Its these absalute numbers that causes skepticism in me.

Its guessing, and once I meet a guesser!!! Im a skeptic.

When you get a man in a white coat with letters behind his name talking to a man in a cloth cap the smell of the one way information can be overwheming.